Self-defense cases rarely 'black and white'

In the weeks after Byron Smith killed two teenagers who broke into his home north of Little Falls, advocates for expanded self-defense laws pointed to the case as a talking point.

Some hailed Smith for standing up to those intruders and protecting his home even though it meant taking the lives of two teenagers who turned out to be unarmed. And Smith's attorney told jurors in April that Smith had a right to use deadly force when Haile Kifer and Nick Brady broke in on Thanksgiving Day 2012.

But once the facts of the case were heard, Smith's status as a vigilante who was justified in shooting the burglars after his home had been repeatedly ransacked quickly faded among most. Even the state legislator who sought expanded protections for those who use deadly force when confronted with danger said the Smith case has no place in the debate.

Haile Kifer and Nick Brady(Photo: Submitted photo)

Case 'overboard'

The law written by Rep. Tony Cornish, R-Good Thunder, "wouldn't have helped one bit," Cornish said. He wanted to expand what's known as the Castle Doctrine, a law that allows homeowners to use deadly force if they reasonably believe they are in danger of death or great bodily harm.

Cornish's bill would have allowed the use of that force in vehicles, fenced-in yards surrounding residences and on patios, among other things.

His bill was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton and was opposed by police and sheriffs associations.

Cornish said he followed the Smith case closely and believes that what Smith did clearly crossed a line from self-defense into something more sinister.

"Anybody even to think that it's reasonable to shoot somebody in self-defense would have to think this was really overboard," Cornish said of Smith's actions.

To use the Smith case in the debate about expanding the Castle Doctrine is misguided and confuses the issue, he said. Cornish said he has heard statements since the Smith trial that what Smith did would have been protected by the law he wanted passed.

"It's a completely ignorant comment, because he wouldn't under the Castle Doctrine," Cornish said. "The Castle Doctrine doesn't help anyone once there isn't a threat."

Not black and white

Peter Orput, the Washington County Attorney who prosecuted Smith at the request of Morrison County officials, said the case initially was framed as one of self-defense and that he encouraged those who did that to wait to see the evidence.

The case was "not a referendum on protecting one's dwelling, not even close," Orput said.

There is general agreement that statutes allow someone to protect his or her home from an invasion, Orput said. But what Smith did doesn't belong in that debate.

"This was nothing more than a planned out premeditated murder and has nothing to do at all with the statutes about defending one's dwelling, as evidenced by the jury being out for a very short period of time," Orput said. "They didn't see it as that. It wasn't that. None of the evidence indicated anything about defending one's dwelling."

Not every case in which self-defense is claimed is the same, and juries need to be aware of that when examining the facts of each case. Police investigations can uncover details that aren't mentioned when the crime is first reported, details that can change the dynamics of the case once the jury hears the facts, said Andy Skoogman, executive director of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association.

"I think the greatest impact of the case might be that it clearly shows the complexity of many self-defense cases," Skoogman said. "They are rarely black and white once the details emerge."

Another group that opposed Cornish's expanded Castle Doctrine was the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers Association. Members believed it went too far in what was protected and put officers at greater risk, particularly when they are executing a search warrant in which they don't have to knock, said Dennis Flaherty, executive director of the association.

Added measures

There was nothing in Cornish's bill that would have been relevant to the Little Falls case, Flaherty said.

"As the trial proceeded we discovered that he not only took that first measure (of firing the first shots at Brady and Kifer) but additional measures and that's what got him into the predicament he's in today," Flaherty said. "I don't think there's any relevancy to Castle Doctrine in what happened in Little Falls."

Had Smith shot Brady and Kifer once and then called the police, he likely wouldn't have been charged, Flaherty said.

"I think it would have gone to the grand jury, and it would have been justifiable under state law and both of those people would probably, although they were wounded, would probably be still among the living," he said. "But there were steps he took when he should have called the cops. He went from wanting to protect himself to wanting to kill them, in a very short period of time it sounds like. That's where his problems came."

Cornish said people are confusing his support for an expanded Castle Doctrine with the false belief that he somehow approves of what Smith did.

"People confuse it when they hear me being in favor of guns and self-defense and the Castle Doctrine that somehow I would approve this guy's action," Cornish said. "And I, nor my extended family, none of us did. I thought (the verdict) could be as quick as 20 minutes or an hour."

So while some on the national stage are holding Smith up as some sort of vigilante hero who is a shining example of homeowners' rights to protect their dwelling, others say the case's evidence says something different.